Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Eldritch_Lord" data-source="post: 5392658" data-attributes="member: 52073">1) Most of the responses to you have been to clarify what seemed to be a misunderstanding on your part--namely, that stunned and nauseated and such don't mean helpless.&nbsp; If you are bashed upside the head with something and are too dizzy to hit someone with your own weapon, that doesn't prevent you from ducking out of the way of their next blow.&nbsp; You'll be slower, of course, but that's what that -2 to AC is for.&nbsp; If you're nauseated to the point that any time you try to speak magic words you feel like puking, that doesn't mean you can't leap out of the way of a fireball, stomach cramps and all.2) Once again, &quot;cannot take actions&quot; is very specific in game terms, despite your seeming disdain of the actual rules as displayed above.&nbsp; There are standard actions, full-round actions, move actions, swift actions, immediate actions, free actions...and there are also not-an-actions, those things that don't require any appreciable effort on your part and can be done even during other actions.&nbsp; That is what saving throws fall under, as do most other reactive things that don't consume immediate actions.&nbsp; So when you &quot;can't take actions,&quot; you can only do things that don't require actions, and saving throws don't.Valuing common sense or a gut reaction to give you the &quot;correct&quot; ruling in a rules-heavy and occasionally counterintuitive game is probably not the best approach.1) You may call it righteous indignation, but no on thus far aside from you has brought that level of emotion into things.&nbsp; Called your rulings bad ones, attempted to point out the correct rules, yes, but not started ranting at anyone.2) If they were really munchkins, they'd be agreeing with you!&nbsp; Your ruling turns any spell inflicting one of six or so conditions into an instant-win spell; what munchkin wouldn't like that?&nbsp; RAW-lawyering would be exploiting loopholes or vague rules to gain an advantage; pointing out &quot;This condition does not deny you a Reflex save, thus it does not deny you a Reflex save&quot; is not rules-lawyering, it is merely, as you said before, common sense.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Eldritch_Lord, post: 5392658, member: 52073"] 1) Most of the responses to you have been to clarify what seemed to be a misunderstanding on your part--namely, that stunned and nauseated and such don't mean helpless. If you are bashed upside the head with something and are too dizzy to hit someone with your own weapon, that doesn't prevent you from ducking out of the way of their next blow. You'll be slower, of course, but that's what that -2 to AC is for. If you're nauseated to the point that any time you try to speak magic words you feel like puking, that doesn't mean you can't leap out of the way of a fireball, stomach cramps and all. 2) Once again, "cannot take actions" is very specific in game terms, despite your seeming disdain of the actual rules as displayed above. There are standard actions, full-round actions, move actions, swift actions, immediate actions, free actions...and there are also not-an-actions, those things that don't require any appreciable effort on your part and can be done even during other actions. That is what saving throws fall under, as do most other reactive things that don't consume immediate actions. So when you "can't take actions," you can only do things that don't require actions, and saving throws don't. Valuing common sense or a gut reaction to give you the "correct" ruling in a rules-heavy and occasionally counterintuitive game is probably not the best approach. 1) You may call it righteous indignation, but no on thus far aside from you has brought that level of emotion into things. Called your rulings bad ones, attempted to point out the correct rules, yes, but not started ranting at anyone. 2) If they were really munchkins, they'd be [I]agreeing[/I] with you! Your ruling turns any spell inflicting one of six or so conditions into an instant-win spell; what munchkin wouldn't like that? RAW-lawyering would be exploiting loopholes or vague rules to gain an advantage; pointing out "This condition does not deny you a Reflex save, thus it does not deny you a Reflex save" is not rules-lawyering, it is merely, as you said before, common sense. [/QUOTE]

Verification